Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

PP v.

FONTANILLA
FACTS:
At around 9:30 p.m. on October 29, 1996, Jose Olais was walking along the provincial
road in Butubut Oeste, Balaoan, La Union when Alfonso Fontanilla suddenly struck him
in the head with a piece of wood called bellang.2 Olais fell facedown to the ground, but
Fontanilla hit him again in the head with a piece of stone. Fontanilla desisted from hitting
Olais a third time only because Joel Marquez and Tirso Abunan, the sons-in-law of Olais,
shouted at him, causing him to run away. Marquez and Abunan rushed their father-in-law
to a medical clinic, where Olais was pronounced dead on arrival.3 On April 25, 1997, the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of La Union filed an information for murder against
Fontanilla in the RTC. The accused pleaded not guilty.
At the trial, Fontanilla claimed self-defense. He said that on the night of the incident, he
had been standing on the road near his house when Olais, wielding a nightstick and
appearing to be drunk, had boxed him in the stomach; that although he had then talked to
Olais nicely, the latter had continued hitting him with his fists, striking him with straight
blows; that Olais, a karate expert, had also kicked him with both his legs; that he had thus
been forced to defend himself by picking up a stone with which he had hit the right side
of the victims head, causing the latter to fall face down to the ground; and that he had
then left the scene for his house upon seeing that Olais was no longer moving.
On June 21, 2001, the RTC declared Fontanilla guilty as charged. On appeal, the CA
affirmed the RTC.
ISSUE: WON the elements of the justifying circumstance of self defense are present.
RULING:
NO. In order for self-defense to be appreciated, he had to prove by clear and convincing
evidence the following elements: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.19 Unlawful
aggression is the indispensable element of self-defense, for if no unlawful aggression
attributed to the victim is established, self-defense is unavailing, for there is nothing to
repel.20 The character of the element of unlawful aggression is aptly explained as
follows: Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the
justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no
justified killing in defense of oneself. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression
under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life
or personal safety of the person defending himself the peril must not be an imagined or
imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three
elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack
or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the
attack or assault must be unlawful. Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or
material unlawful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or material
unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive
act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent

unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it


must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must
be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot
or opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack). Imminent unlawful aggression
must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as pressing his right hand to
his hip where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or like
aiming to throw a pot.
By invoking self-defense, however, Fontanilla admitted inflicting the fatal injuries that
caused the death of Olais. It is basic that once an accused in a prosecution for murder or
homicide admitted his infliction of the fatal injuries on the deceased, he assumed the
burden to prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence the justifying
circumstance that would avoid his criminal liability.22 Having thus admitted being the
author of the death of the victim, Fontanilla came to bear the burden of proving the
justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court,23 and he would be held criminally
liable unless he established self-defense by sufficient and satisfactory proof.24 He should
discharge the burden by relying on the strength of his own evidence, because the
Prosecutions evidence, even if weak, would not be disbelieved in view of his admission
of the killing.25 Nonetheless, the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
remained with the State until the end of the proceedings. Fontanilla did not discharge his
burden. A review of the records reveals that, one, Olais did not commit unlawful
aggression against Fontanilla, and, two, Fontanillas act of hitting the victims head with
a stone, causing the mortal injury, was not proportional to, and constituted an
unreasonable response to the victims fistic attack and kicks. Indeed, had Olais really
attacked Fontanilla, the latter would have sustained some injury from the aggression. It
remains, however, that no injury of any kind or gravity was found on the person of
Fontanilla when he presented himself to the hospital; hence, the attending physician of
the hospital did not issue any medical certificate to him. Nor was any medication applied
to him.26 In contrast, the physician who examined the cadaver of Olais testified that
Olais had been hit on the head more than once. The plea of self-defense was thus belied,
for the weapons used by Fontanilla and the location and number of wounds he inflicted
on Olais revealed his intent to kill, not merely an effort to prevent or repel an attack from
Olais. We consider to be significant that the gravity of the wounds manifested the
determined effort of the accused to kill his victim, not just to defend himself.27 The CA
and the RTC found that treachery was attendant. We concur. Fontanilla had appeared out
of nowhere to strike Olais on the head, first with the wooden stick, and then with a big
stone, causing Olais to fall to the ground facedown. The suddenness and unexpectedness
of the attack effectively denied to Olais the ability to defend himself or to retaliate against
Fontanilla.